CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #7

[Niner]

Boy - you all were busy last night - day for you all!

And I'm off to the casino for a bit haha Will have to catch up later

I see your DH WON!!

I see some people have answered you - here's what I have from the Timeline:

snipped by me....
28 Q Okay. Now, turning your attention to February 8th, what
92
1 did your analysis of the defendant's records that day reveal?
2 Well, let me ask you this, 'cause we are, we're drawing
3 near on lunchtime.
4 Between 7:36 A.M. and 1:31 P.M., is there any activity on
5 the defendant's --
6 A Between 7:36 and 1:31?
7 Q Correct.
8 A There is one, one incoming call that goes to voice mail,
9 does not generate a cell tower, though. So, there's no location
10 information.

per timeline:

Feb. 8, 7:26am to 1:31pm - CM cell phone disabled. See Feb. 9th 4:49pm-10:11pm ** re “disabled”.

Feb. 8, 1:31pm - CM cell phone pings in Corona, CA and appears to be heading north. Per Preliminary hearing – page 92-93; cell tower near Auto Center Drive and the 91 Freeway in Corona. Followed by a tower at
1:41pm further north up on the I5 Freeway. Then at
1:42pm hits cell tower adjacent to I5 Freeway in Limonite. (near the Limonite exit in Mira Loma)
From Trial - ref. post #402 at CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #5

snipped....
Feb 9th
A At 2:44 P.M., it stated the user canceled QuickBooks

3 online subscription.

per timeline:

Tuesday, February 9 –
8:06am – user again cancelled QuickBooks online subscription per Prelim hearing page 116. Per QuickBooks online customer service rep, Ryan Baker, Per Prelim hearing page 116 & 118 - this is the day someone used CM cell phone to call Quickbooks support and ask to delete account. The caller claimed to be JM, even though the cell phone number was that of CM. Caller wanted to transfer the account to anoher account and then once it was transferred and this subscription was canceled, he need to delete all of the accounts. The call lasted 107 minutes.
(Someone ordered a copy of Joseph’s Quickbooks accounting program four days after the disappearance and before they were reported missing.)

Feb. 9, 8:06am - Another attempt was made to cancel Quickbooks subscription. Not sure if this was by phone or online.

Feb. 9, 1:07pm - CM makes call to JM (no further attempts to call JM – per Preliminary hearing – page 94: cell tower between Corona and Lake Elsinore – the south Corona area, Temescal Valley.)

Feb. 9, 4:49pm to 10:11pm - CM cell phone pings at Pechanga Casino.
Merritt's cell phone also pinged in the Fallbrook area on February 9. Merritt's cell phone did not ping at any time close to the border in San Ysidro.
**On several occasions, Merritt's cell phone was either dead, or turned off, or out of cell phone range for hours at a time, including five hours of inactivity on Feb. 5 and six hours of inactivity on Feb. 8. Per Preliminary hearing – page 93: 4:49pm to 10:11pm – cell tower adjacent to the Pechanga Indian Reservation in the Temecula area. ATM withdrawal of $1000 at Pechanga Casino from CM’s BofA account – per Prelim hearing page 130.


the 2:44pm call on 2/9 isn't reflected in the timeline - so don't know "where" he was....

BUT! I have it on the 8th:

February 8 –
2:20pm – QuickBooks activity – user added check to Charles Merritt for $6,500 memo line: “saudi arabia final”, check backdated to 2-4-10 per Prelim hearing page 115; check was printed and deleted and deposited into CM’s BofA account on the next day Feb. 9th.
2:44pm – user canceled QuickBooks online subscription.


BUT! Maybe I have the days wrong....

But he only has natural graying around his nape and temples. The remainder looks dyed to me, though. How does one do that in jail?

shoe polish??

 

[katydid23]

Absolutely, it would be very close to ineffective assistance of counsel to let him testify. There is absolutely no way that is happening.

Wait, can it be declared 'ineffective assistance of counsel' if defense attorneys 'let' their client testify?

I wouldn't think so---it is the client's constitutional right to testify or not, and in all of the trial's I have seen , the judge asks the defendant specifically if they want to testify or not, and reminds them they can make their own decision, it is not up to their counsel.

 

[katydid23]

maybe there was a master plan to keep the business running for Joey, who 'went to Mexico with his family'

OHHH< yes, good thinking. Once the bodies were found, the McStay ATM is shut down for good.

 

[katydid23]

Remember when Merritt wanted to represent himelf? Wonder what he disagreed with his attorneys about back then? Maybe this very issue

I think he told the courts he wanted to represent himself because of what it afforded him while incarcerated.

He was then legally allowed to have all of the discovery delivered to him , and given time in the library, every day, to research the case. Having all of those discovery documents allowed his con man mind to take over, and create new versions of the story. Once he knew exactly what the DA knew and what their case was, he could tailor his own story to fit.

Then of course, he bailed on that decision and got himself new representation, but was able to take part in his own defense because of his recent research etc.

He is going to have answers for everything, just wait.

 

[mrjitty]

maybe there was a master plan to keep the business running for Joey, who 'went to Mexico with his family'

This what I wonder about. The plan was not merely to obscure the forensics. Death itself was hidden.

This form of staging tends to happen when it is necessary to conceal the relationship between murderer and victim, as we as the relationship to place of death.

Indeed you see it a lot in domestic crimes against women and kids.

Construction of elaborate narratives tends to reveal the hand of the murder, because reality itself does not contain exposition. An efficient staging for example, a recent UK serial killer who was murdering prostitutes. He dumped the bodies in the river to obscure forensics. However there was no need to hide death.

My thinking is not fully formed on this yet, because I want to learn more about the house and hope we get more forensics. But if the real need was to obscure forensics, why not focus on hiding the bodies?

And if the real crime scene is hidden why the need for "mexico"?

 

[katydid23]

Can you please provide us with a link to those ratings/complaints? Thanks so much.

Ripoff Report: Waterfalls By Chase - San Dimas, California Furniture & Furnishings

Ripoff Report: Waterfalls By Chase - San Dimas, California Outdoor Furniture & Equipment

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/I-Des...ritt-Stolen-Money-No-Product-Delivered-410360

 

[katydid23]

Do you know if there was any crime in the neighborhood at that time that Ms. Mitchelly might have been concerned about?

There was talk, back in the much older threads, that Ms Mitchelly had been monitoring her home closely because of an ex, who was volatile and threatening. So she did not want to give her camera system away for even one night, at that time.

 

[katydid23]

I love these kinda posts in the middle of a thread LOL It was like katy's strikethrough a few threads ago.

I should have told y'all I did that on purpose, to make some kind of dramatic point. lol

 

[katydid23]

I think it's hard when you actually care that the right person is convicted and that there is real justice to just be entertained by all this. Real people are impacted by these cases on so many levels. Evidence, actual hard facts, are all we have to guide us. Evidence matters. I just have a hard time seeing this only as a form of entertainment.

I don't see it as a form of entertainment.

My father was a very successful, very committed, Defense Attorney. My brother and I worked in his law firm when we were in college. We both were pre-law majors at UC Berkeley, and my brother went on to Law School, and is still practicing.

I decided that practicing law was not for me. But I continued to work for my Dad for a few years while I pursued other interests. So my interest in trials and in the legal system is a life long thing. I am retired now, home a lot, and so I follow cases because it interests me greatly. Not as 'entertainment' but as a mental pursuit.

What I think personally about Chase Merritt and his trial, and the evidence or lack of, has NO BEARING on his trial and what happens with the verdict. NONE whatsoever.

Real people are impacted by these cases, for sure. I agree. But my personal opinion, of the defendant's guilt or innocence has ZERO impact upon those families. I don't have to apologize for following the cases and discussing the trials, as it has no bearing on the outcome of those cases at all. JMO

 

[mrjitty]

Absolutely but it's sure a difficult decision to make. Bench or jury?
The judgment is nice to have but not if it didn't go in your clients favor! With a jury you only need 1. With a judge you only have one.
Can you tell we are debating this in a case right now?

Oh - i just mean personally i prefer an epic judgement to anorak over.

If I was Chase, no way would i want a Judge trial!

In he said/she said the risk of the defendant testifying can be justified. Without a live complaining witness here, I see no advantage. I can see Chase insisting on it but if he does his counsel will make that very clear.

Yes I agree.

Chase can largely run up his narratives via counsel and experts without giving direct testimony. The goal is to find that patch of doubt and set sail for it.

Testifying has huge implications in terms of his collapsed alibi and inconsistent statements.

 

[mrjitty]

In your estimation, what proves that any of what Chase stated in that interview was a deliberate lie?

I suspect my training causes me to approach this somewhat differently to you, as I mainly came up with the analytical approach of senior judges in civil cases as opposed to juries.

In my opinion the veracity of the accused pre-trial statements shall be first tested in helicopter view. Here we discover that the accused has a dishonest track record. So this will cause us to carefully test how specific reference points of his statements jibe with external facts.

For me, at high level, a Judge would note that the accused's evidence is at best broadly misleading. There is strong evidence of fraud against Chase, all of which he concealed in his statements. One cannot simply brush this aside. This calls the veracity of his statements completely into question. One continues the inquiry and discovers his alibi evidence is also contradicted by the facts - all of which he has never explained.

Indeed one struggles to think of insights offered by Chase that broadly checked out

So in my opinion, the correct legal methodology is to throw all of Chase's exculpatory pre-trial statements in the evidential rubbish bin.

Furthermore, if one infers fraud (I believe a natural and obvious inference) one must also conclude that Chase lied to the investigators via omission and deception.

So I realise one can still maintain that Chase was perhaps confused about his alibi, but I believe any cold eyed judge, given the accused's dishonesty, would reach a different conclusion. On 4 Feb, Chases business partner and best friend, a man he was utterly dependent on financially, disappeared into thin air. The idea you can't work out where you were that evening is frankly laughable. 9 years later we still have no explanation.

Final comment on this - I think the handling of Chase's statements once more shows the danger of not seeing the wood for the trees

 

[mrjitty]

Once he knew exactly what the DA knew and what their case was, he could tailor his own story to fit.

This is an area where I feel there is need for law reform

I prefer the English reforms where the accused must disclose some types of facts he intends to rely on pre-trial to police.

e.g. if you have an Alibi that you were elsewhere, it is absurd you can wait till the end of the trial to disclose it on the stand.

 

[mrjitty]

And if the real crime scene is hidden why the need for "mexico"?

I still need to develop my thinking in this direction but one thing that sticks out to me is that both defence and prosecution agree to a level of staging (normally the defence does not agree there is any staging).

The defence version appears to be the family are forced out of the house on the morning of 5 Feb and murdered at the grave site.

For me this raises 2 curiosities

1. Why is the trooper then not found at the house or dumped close at hand? Why risk driving it so far? The moving of the trooper implies that the grave site is indeed not the murder scene. IMO the trooper was located wherever Joey was murdered. There is no reason to think it was ever driven to the graves. Why stage it?

2. Why is the defence sensitive to the house being the crime scene? If DK did the murders, logically the defence does not know where the murders occurred. Indeed on defence own case, why does it matter if DK found a way to do the murders in the bath tub on morning 5 feb?

 

[A lucas]

I suspect my training causes me to approach this somewhat differently to you, as I mainly came up with the analytical approach of senior judges in civil cases as opposed to juries.

In my opinion the veracity of the accused pre-trial statements shall be first tested in helicopter view. Here we discover that the accused has a dishonest track record. So this will cause us to carefully test how specific reference points of his statements jibe with external facts.

For me, at high level, a Judge would note that the accused's evidence is at best broadly misleading. There is strong evidence of fraud against Chase, all of which he concealed in his statements. One cannot simply brush this aside. This calls the veracity of his statements completely into question. One continues the inquiry and discovers his alibi evidence is also contradicted by the facts - all of which he has never explained.

Indeed one struggles to think of insights offered by Chase that broadly checked out

So in my opinion, the correct legal methodology is to throw all of Chase's exculpatory pre-trial statements in the evidential rubbish bin.

Furthermore, if one infers fraud (I believe a natural and obvious inference) one must also conclude that Chase lied to the investigators via omission and deception.

So I realise one can still maintain that Chase was perhaps confused about his alibi, but I believe any cold eyed judge, given the accused's dishonesty, would reach a different conclusion. On 4 Feb, Chases business partner and best friend, a man he was utterly dependent on financially, disappeared into thin air. The idea you can't work out where you were that evening is frankly laughable. 9 years later we still have no explanation.

Final comment on this - I think the handling of Chase's statements once more shows the danger of not seeing the wood for the trees

Ooh I didn’t realise he still doesn’t have an alibi for the night of 4 Feb. I know he originally suggested he was at home watching a TV (he never had) but assumed he had come up with something more plausible for the afternoon and eve this poor family was murdered.

Does he have an explanation for why his phone was off grid so much from that afternoon until 9th? I hear he rarely went off grid previous to that and that was his girlfriend’s comment!

 

[mrjitty]

Ooh I didn’t realise he still doesn’t have an alibi for the night of 4 Feb. I know he originally suggested he was at home watching a TV (he never had) but assumed he had come up with something more plausible for the afternoon and eve this poor family was murdered.

Does he have an explanation for why his phone was off grid so much from that afternoon until 9th? I hear he rarely went off grid previous to that and that was his girlfriend’s comment!

AFAIK none of these aspects are explained.

I do believe he did change his "movie" thing because it was impossible. Of course one surely makes a mistake about "remembering to watch a movie" on a TV that didn't exist

 

[Tortoise]

I wouldn't put it past him to say he was out cheating on his girlfriend.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

AFAIK none of these aspects are explained.

I do believe he did change his "movie" thing because it was impossible. Of course one surely makes a mistake about "remembering to watch a movie" on a TV that didn't exist

You mean he never came up with an iron clad alibi at the time he was first asked for one?

This is one thing I'd like to know. Did his girlfriend at the time, Jarvis, ever tell LE what time CM finally got home the night of the 4th or on the 5th?

Was she asked what reason he gave her for not answering his phone when she tried to call him several times on the 4th?

I'm sure this has been answered before but I keep missing it.

As we all know, the alibi evidence or lack of one, concerning the accused is a very big deal.

I'm not sure I understand when you mentioned his alibi will be known in the trial?

Iron clad alibis are used at the beginning of any investigation in order to rule potential suspects out.

If CM offered LE a verifiable iron clad alibi during the time in question, we wouldn't even be here for the Merritt trial, would we?

So if he had one, why in the world would he want to wait years locked up in jail before disclosing it?

He has been privy to all of the evidence, including timelines, so do you think he is going to all of a sudden backdoor an alibi to fit based on the state's evidence he has seen?

Tia

 

[oceanblueeyes]

AFAIK none of these aspects are explained.

I do believe he did change his "movie" thing because it was impossible. Of course one surely makes a mistake about "remembering to watch a movie" on a TV that didn't exist

LOL! I think it would be awfully hard to tell LE in great detail what movie he was watching on TV when he didnt even have a TV. LOL

Its shocking to know someone didn't have a TV during the year this happened.

Makes me wonder if he had to pawn his.

His financial information will be very interesting. It should show the deposits he had made from working with Joey the years he subcontracted for him.

CM seemed to have been paid overly well, including when he was overpaid by thousands, and the gambling loans Joey had given him. So he really was making a good sum of money to live a comfortable lifestyle for himself, and his family living with him at the time.

So it will be very interesting to see his own financial history. Such as, did he ever have any ISFs at times, and, if so, how often did it happen in the latter months before he murdered Joey.

His financial history could show even though he was bringing in enough income, he was struggling to pay for necessities, and was spending most of his income on things that were not a necessity.

Imo, it could show why he was so incensed, and enraged if Joey told him on the 4th he was out, and no longer going to be his subcontractor.

Suddenly, without prior warning, CM was on his own with a business rating from hell.

Imo, CM, had relied on Joey to keep him afloat for years, and now he knew he was going to sink faster than a concrete block.

No more would he be overpaid. No more loans to pay off his debts. No more manipulation of Joey where he had to pay twice for the same material supplies because Merritt hadn't held up his end.

Joey had been CMs cash cow for years!

On Feb. 4th CMs life suddenly had crashed into a brick wall!!!!

Imo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Yes and trying to ingratiate themselves with LE. I noticed right at the beginning of his interview he said something to the female detective like 'you look just like your voice' or wtte and I thought here he goes, probably trying to flatter her.

True, he was working the room trying to be in control. They often think they are far smarter than LE. Many times that becomes their weakness.

LE will let them think they are the smartest one in the room. LE loves to let them talk,and talk. Finally they talk themselves right in to a hole.

That's why many times they will ask the suspect...how do you think it could have happened, as if LE is clueless. Lol

And of course the suspect is fully convinced the police don't have a clue, so they must tell them what they think being the smarter one, and walk themselves into that trap all the time.

Imo

 

[missy1974]

I still need to develop my thinking in this direction but one thing that sticks out to me is that both defence and prosecution agree to a level of staging (normally the defence does not agree there is any staging).

The defence version appears to be the family are forced out of the house on the morning of 5 Feb and murdered at the grave site.

For me this raises 2 curiosities

1. Why is the trooper then not found at the house or dumped close at hand? Why risk driving it so far? The moving of the trooper implies that the grave site is indeed not the murder scene. IMO the trooper was located wherever Joey was murdered. There is no reason to think it was ever driven to the graves. Why stage it?

2. Why is the defence sensitive to the house being the crime scene? If DK did the murders, logically the defence does not know where the murders occurred. Indeed on defence own case, why does it matter if DK found a way to do the murders in the bath tub on morning 5 feb?

The prosecution thinks Joey did get home though, I haven't heard any indication or even hint that he didn't by them. Maybe they know he did? a purchase or something on the way home?

I think the defense is saying that there is no way that 4 people were bludgeoned to death in that home, so it has to be somewhere else. The prosecution's case has to have it at the home on the evening of the 4th to "fit".

I also don't think the home was staged, but that's JMO

Regardless of how this trial ends, I think there will always be some unanswered questions. Did Joey make it home that day? Did Chase or someone force them out of the house and kill them?